by Paul Joseph Watson
July 14, 2010
Bilderberger Shapiro says
President needs new OKC or 9/11 as a way of "demonstrating that he
is a leader" before November elections and reversing plunging
A former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton says that the only thing
which can rescue
Barack Obama's increasingly tenuous grip on power as his
approval figures continue to plunge is a terror attack on the scale of
Oklahoma City or
9/11, another startling reminder that such events only ever
serve to benefit those in authority.
Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama's "growing credibility
crisis" and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the
White House but also the Senate to Republicans,
Robert Shapiro makes it
clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror
attack to rescue his presidency.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s
leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and
November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence
and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how
he could do that.”
Shapiro's veiled warning should not be dismissed lightly.
undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs dung Clinton's tenure in the
Oval Office and also acted as principal economic adviser to Clinton in his
1991-1992 campaign. Shapiro is now Director of the Globalization Initiative
of NDN and also Chair of the Climate Task Force. He is a prominent globalist
who has attended numerous
Bilderberg Group meetings over the past decade.
Shapiro is clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be
launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around
his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in
the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to
well above 80%.
Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion
which was brewing in the mid 1990's by exploiting the OKC bombing to
demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists.
As Jack Cashill
points out, Clinton,
"descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in
the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican
revolution buried in the rubble."
Anti-incumbent fever is dominating the political climate once again, with
establishment Democrats facing serious challenges from
Tea Party candidates,
people like Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, who has a battle
on his hands against Sharron Angle, a candidate the establishment media has
attempted to demonize as a far-right extremist because she supports populist
measures like removing sodium
fluoride from water supplies and supports the
Oath Keepers group, an organization centered around upholding states' rights
and the U.S. Constitution.
Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on
right-wing radicals can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency
candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of
establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.
As we highlighted yesterday, Shapiro is by no means the first to point out
that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only
to benefit those in positions of power.
CNN host Rick Sanchez admitted on his show this week that the deadly
bombings in Uganda which killed 74 people were "helpful" to the
military-industrial complex agenda to expand the war on terror into Africa.
During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support
for expanding the
war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal
Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007
“The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like
9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which
yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror
“restore his image as a leader of the American people.”
In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party
said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President
Bush to regain popular approval.
Given the fact that a terror attack on U.S. soil will only serve to rescue
Barack Obama's failing presidency, and will do absolutely nothing to further
the aims of any so-called "right wing extremists" the attack is blamed on,
who should we suspect as the masterminds behind any such acts of terror?
Surely not Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief string puller, the son of an Israeli
terrorist who helped bomb hotels and marketplaces, and the man who once
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste... an opportunity to
do things that you think you could not do before."
Undoubtedly, the first people we should suspect as culprits in the event of
a domestic terror attack in the United States are the individuals Obama
globalists who are desperate to neutralize the growing success
of grass-roots movements who have ridden a wave of rising resentment against
big government as a means of obtaining real political power.